It is only at the end of a shoot that you finally get the chance to sit down and have a look at the film you have made. Recently Fran, Phil and I did just this when we watched for the first time an early cut of the first movie – and a large chunk of the second. We were really pleased with the way the story was coming together, in particular, the strength of the characters and the cast who have brought them to life. All of which gave rise to a simple question: do we take this chance to tell more of the tale? And the answer from our perspective as the filmmakers, and as fans, was an unreserved ‘yes.’

We know how much of the story of Bilbo Baggins, the Wizard Gandalf, the Dwarves of Erebor, the rise of the Necromancer, and the Battle of Dol Guldur will remain untold if we do not take this chance. The richness of the story of The Hobbit, as well as some of the related material in the appendices of The Lord of the Rings, allows us to tell the full story of the adventures of Bilbo Baggins and the part he played in the sometimes dangerous, but at all times exciting, history of Middle-earth.

So, without further ado and on behalf of New Line Cinema, Warner Bros. Pictures, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Wingnut Films, and the entire cast and crew of “The Hobbit” films, I’d like to announce that two films will become three.

It has been an unexpected journey indeed, and in the words of Professor Tolkien himself, ”a tale that grew in the telling.”

As long as the extra background material is taken from the other works of the author and add to the films, great ! If it's just filler, not so good.

I'd surmise that the three films will come in under around or under three hours - I'd much rather have three x three hour films than two four hour ones...

Click to expand...

The Hobbit is a short book. You could make a single, normal length movie of it without cutting anything.

Click to expand...

I know, it's a childrens book. To be honest, so was LOTR in some places - early scenes in The Shire and Tom Bombadil would have easily fit with The Hobbit.

Jackson has already said that he was going to make it stylistically more of an adult movie like the LOTR films, and expand them with the copious material from the LOTR appendices filling in the background and the gap between The Hobbit and LOTR. Unfortunately they don't have the rights to the many Book Of Lost Tales and History Of Middle Earth books, nor The Silmarillion.

As I said, the expanding of The Hobbit should add a lot to the story, hopefully before, during and after...

I can tell he fell in love with the cast, and the look of the film, and that he wants to put as much in possible and allow the story to breathe. And sure, any LOTR story will have more sustenance to it when being allowed to breathe than, say, a thin story like King Kong (wherein the whole point of staying on the boat for so long was for tension), but I think the narrative will suffer from such prolonged length.

I have never read the book but had heard that it was for kids so I also hope Peter makes it into a more adult story and prequel to LOTR.

Click to expand...

It is for kids. That's what the book is. That's what makes it charming and that's what makes it memorable. Trying to turn it into a "more adult story" may be possible I guess, but it betrays a completely tone deaf approach to the material.

I have never read the book but had heard that it was for kids so I also hope Peter makes it into a more adult story and prequel to LOTR.

Click to expand...

It is for kids. That's what the book is. That's what makes it charming and that's what makes it memorable. Trying to turn it into a "more adult story" may be possible I guess, but it betrays a completely tone deaf approach to the material.

Click to expand...

I think a balanced approach to the material could work. LOTR was dark and serious but you can do more adult and still be lighthearted and even whimsical.

So they're actually going to stretch the story of The Hobbit across three movies? I dunno, I thought two might have already been pushing it. But there's no rule saying that these movies have to be three hours (or more) long like the LOTR films were. Still, if they were going to do a third movie, I thought they'd do the bridge film instead.

So they're actually going to stretch the story of The Hobbit across three movies? I dunno, I thought two might have already been pushing it. But there's no rule saying that these movies have to be three hours (or more) long like the LOTR films were. Still, if they were going to do a third movie, I thought they'd do the bridge film instead.

Click to expand...

They are doing the Hobbit and mix it in with material found in the LOTR appendices.